AN INVESTIGATION OF RELATIONS AMONG ACADEMIC ENABLERS AND READING OUTCOMES

The current study examined the link between academic enablers and different types of reading achievement measures. Academic enablers are skills and behaviors that support, or enable, students to perform well academically, such as engagement, interpersonal skills, motivation, and study skills. The sample in this study consisted of 61 third‐, fourth‐, and fifth‐grade students (54% male). Academic enablers were rated by classroom teachers via the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES; DiPerna & Elliott, 2000 ). Four different measures of reading achievement were included: classroom grades, global ratings of reading skills, standardized test scores, and Reading CBM scores. Results indicated that academic enablers were significantly related to each type of reading outcome. Academic enablers accounted for the greatest amount of variance for classroom grades (45%) and the least amount of variance in standardized test scores (11%). Results suggest that academic enablers are an important part of academic success in reading, particularly classroom grades, but when considering the variance accounted for by academic enablers, they alone are not likely to improve Reading CBM scores or standardized test scores.     

Position-specific performance indicators that discriminate between successful and unsuccessful teams in elite women’s indoor field hockey: implications for coaching

The aim of this investigation was to establish median performance profiles for the six playing positions in elite women’s indoor hockey and then identify whether these position-specific profiles could discriminate between qualifying (top four), mid-table and relegated teams in the 2011–2012 England Hockey premier league. Successful passing in relegated teams was significantly lower (P < 0.008) than in mid-table and qualifying teams in four of the five outfield positions. Furthermore, the right backs of qualifying teams demonstrated significantly fewer (P < 0.008) unsuccessful passes (x? = 15.5 ± CLs 15.0 and 10.0, respectively) and interceptions (x? = 4.0 ± CLs 4.0 and 3.0, respectively) than relegated teams (x? = 19.5 ± CLs 21.0 and 17.0; x? = 7.5 ± CLs 8.0 and 6.0, respectively). Finally, the right forwards of relegated teams demonstrated significantly fewer (P < 0.008) successful interceptions (x? = 4.0 ± CLs 5.0 and 4.0, respectively) than qualifying teams (x? = 5.0 ± CLs 6.0 and 3.0, respectively) and significantly more (P < 0.008) unsuccessful interceptions (x? = 5.5 ± CLs 6.0 and 4.0, respectively) than mid-table teams (x? = 3.0 ± CLs 3.0 and 2.0, respectively). Based on these findings, coaches should adapt tactical strategies and personnel deployment accordingly to enhance the likelihood of preparing a qualifying team. Research should build from these data to examine dribbling, pressing and patterns of play when outletting.